Letters to the editor
Senate Bill 637
Re “State should reject absurd banking bill” (Feb. 23):
I was pleasantly surprised to read your position on SB
637 and the very well articulated reasons — many that those of us in law enforcement have been screaming about for years. You nailed it perfectly.
FYI: after decades of living in the IE, I had canceled the newspaper because of the growing lack of unbiased, independent journalism. I’ve decided to give the paper another try.
How about doing an investigative piece on the disastrous results of AB 109, Props 47 and 57, etc.? I once had a political science professor who never told us his opinion and encouraged robust dialogue in class. A student asked him one time why he bounces all over the issues and never provides the class with his opinion. The professor replied that his job was not to convince us to believe and think like him, but rather to develop the logic and reasoning skills to fully understand an issue before forming an opinion or taking action. A valuable life lesson sadly missing in most of our major learning institutions.
I believe that modern journalism has lost that concept as evidenced by so much dogma weaved throughout just about every topic, story... Yes, op-eds are exactly that, but it would be nice if some of your reporters would stop interjecting their personal political bias into just about every topic they cover. There are so many examples of intentionally omitting information or unnecessarily using words to inflame others and show a lack of respect for different opinions. Any data provided on a topic should contain context.
Most of the public simply want our media to report thoroughly on important topics and let us form our own opinions. Keep your personal bias and opinions where they belong — op-eds. I guarantee that your viewership and subscriptions would skyrocket.
California health care
Re “Single-payer stunt makes a comeback” (Feb. 21):
Thank you for the excellent editorial on the single-payer issue. Only 9.5% of Californians are uninsured with the vast majority of them being undocumented.
So Assemblyman Kalra wants to take a sledgehammer to our current healthcare system by eliminating all private insurance.
And what do we get for that?
Higher costs, higher taxes and zero choice for Californians.
Oh by the way, it is to be replaced by benefits yet to be determined, to be serviced by an entity yet to be identified, to include new tax provisions yet to be detailed. Gee, what could go wrong with that?
The U.S. cannot default
Re “Report: U.S. could default on debt as early as summer” (Feb. 23):
The New York Times piece you published is an example of liberal fear-mongering. The
U.S. cannot and will not default on its debt whether the debt ceiling is raised or not.
The reason is simple arithmetic. According to a Feb. 20 Wall Street Journal article by David Rivkin and Lee Casey, the federal government “collects roughly $450 billion a month in tax revenue, more than enough to cover the $55 billion or so in monthly debt service.”
The Constitution says that first $55 billion must be paid, and we clearly have more than enough money to do it. What we don’t have money for is all the profligate spending beyond our means the government has committed to for the past two years. Cutting that is a political problem, not a constitutional one. For the media to suggest a default is inevitable, or even possible, is gross irresponsibility.
Tobacco ban when other drugs are everywhere
Re “‘Just say no’ to ban on tobacco sales” (Feb. 22):
Isn’t it embarrassing that the state looks to ban all tobacco but you can purchase marijuana in any shape or form and fentanyl is everywhere.
All this is doing is controlling tax paying citizens their right to choose, while California will lose billions in taxable income for a state hurting for money. But there will always be a black market for those who choose to use tobacco. Genius move once again by our leaders that don’t think.